##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:23273]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 142/2025

Robin Singh Rathore S/o Ladu Singh Rathore, Aged About 28

Years, R/o Plot No 280 Hanwant-A BJS Colony Jodhpur Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Yashpal Singh Rathore, R/o Plot No 633-B New BJS Colony

Jodhpur Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Public Prosecutor

Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

14/05/2026

1. The present leave to appeal has been filed aggrieved of order

dated 08.08.2023 whereby the accused respondent was acquitted

of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’). It has been prayed that

leave be granted and the accused respondent be convicted for

offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

2. The present leave to appeal is reported to be barred by 593

days.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the delay caused in

filing the present leave to appeal is not intentional, but is bona

fide as the appellant was not informed by the Counsel, of the

impugned order. Further, despite his having instructed the

Counsel, the appeal was not filed within the limitation period.

4. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:45:21 PM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 11:38:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:23273] (2 of 3) [CRLLA-142/2025]

5. So far as the reason assigned for the huge delay of 593 days

caused in fling the present leave to appeal is concerned, this Court

is not inclined to accept the same. There is nothing on record to

suggest that any complaint has been filed against the concerned

Counsel, who despite being instructed did not file the appeal.

6. Dealing with a similar issue in Rajneesh Kumar and

Another Versus Ved Prakash; 2024 INSC 891, Hon’ble the

Apex Court observed as under:

“10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown

on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the

petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a

period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to

blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in

attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we

assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was

careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground

to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant

owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is

expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial

proceedings pending in the court initiated at his

instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be

permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the

advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek

relief.”

7. This Court has also taken a view in Hajari Lal Vs.Govind

Prasad; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.745/2020 (decided on

18.01.2024) that “a mere bald allegation on a lawyer cannot be a

sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte order. It is very easy to

lay allegation against the lawyer who is not before the Court to

defend the same. As held time and again, a mere cursory

allegation against a lawyer cannot be considered to be a plausible

(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 01:45:21 PM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 11:38:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:23273] (3 of 3) [CRLLA-142/2025]

reason without there being any substantive evidence to prove the

inaction/negligence on part of the counsel”.

8. This Court is not inclined to grant leave also for the reason

that despite the complainant been granted time to lead his

evidence for four years i.e. from the year 2019 to 2023, he did not

lead his evidence. In spite of last opportunity been given, he did

not avail the opportunity and hence, the accused was ultimately

acquitted vide order dated 08.08.2023.

9. The present leave to appeal has been filed in the year 2025

and no plausible reason for the delay of 593 days has been

assigned.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act is hereby, rejected

11. As a consequence, the leave to appeal also stands

dismissed

(R